Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on Thursday said that Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to become instruments in the hands of the Enforcement Directorate to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time.

Court has further observed that if the trial under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. Noting that Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, the top court has said, "The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions.".

Some day, top court has said, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after a very long incarceration as an undertrial.

It is the Supreme Court's view that in such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost and it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

"If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be substantially attributed to the accused, the Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs.", a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih has held.

Top Court has made these observations while granting bail to Tamil Nadu's former minister V Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case.

Balaji has approached Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's decision from February this year dismissing his bail plea. High Court had decided the matter on merit and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial on a daily basis and conclude it within a three-month timeframe.

Allegedly, when Senthil Balaji, who recently resigned from the post of Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister, was serving as Transport Minister in Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet during 2011-15, a job racket took place where bribe was sought for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation. It is alleged that he had obtained money from third parties promising jobs in the Transport Department and thereafter cheated them.

The ED arrested the Minister on June 14 last year and he was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. Meanwhile, after the Minister complained of chest pain, he was admitted to Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Specialty Hospital at Omandurar Estate in Chennai for a medical checkup. At the government hospital, the Minister was advised CABG-Bypass surgery at the earliest.

On the same day, the Minister's wife moved the high court alleging that his arrest has been done without following the due procedure and sought his transfer to a private hospital for treatment. Later, the high court denied the Minister interim bail but allowed him to be shifted to a private hospital in Chennai for treatment.

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji vs. ED